My, but aren't you the sweet one. You know, before you run around casting aspersions at others, you might just want to learn to read a newspaper. We went through this exact same "good cop/bad cop" BS with CFR, and it passed. Luckily, SCOTUS granted cert, and luckily, they struck it down as unConstitutional. However, all that does is allows the Lefties to rewrite the language and try it all over again in a few years, only this time, they can point back to the support that the Right gave it and use that to help sway the sheep-like voters. Gee, what a brilliant strategy! Send the message that we like violating the Constitution with repeated Comngressional acts, that the Oath of the Presidency means nothing because schmucks like you prefer to play politics than to have principles, and that banning entire classes of guns is something that conservatives will sign on to. Sheer genius.
But, of course, you're the one who doesn't mind your wife coming home after trying to cheat on you and upon reporting her lack of success, you're happy to exclaim, "Well, she's just tryin' to strengthen the marriage by making me appreciate her more by playing 'bad wife'! It would be silly of me to chastise her for that!" And yet somehow you think that everyone else displays inferior intellectual prowess, eh cuckold?
The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.
Well, he will have a tougher time winning if he doesn't say what we want to hear. Gee, I thought that was called "politics", but what do I know? I apparently must pass an IQ test before being allowed my God-given right to vote. That's funny, but I recall that such tests were used before in the Jim Crow South, and that they were held to be yet another unConstitutional "reform" that you apparently support... well, at least you're conisitent.
Which would you rather have, genius:
(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or
(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?
Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?
Yes, I do. I have enough brain cells to realize that one man's political ambitions are not worth scrapping the Constitution. Apparently, you don't have the requisite brain cells to realize that choice (2) has already failed as a strategy (CFR passed, using the exact same moronic arguments), choice (1) features you whining about Hillary probably signing it and simultaneously features you admiring the "good politics" of President Bush promising to sign it (no hypocrisy there?), and that you're failing to include choice (3), because you lack either the honesty or the intelligence...
(3) Bush says that banning large classes of weapons that are readily available to authorities is wrong, points out that the language of the law gives the authority to change the definitions of the law to an unaccountable and unelected Bureau (which can vioate Due Process's requisite notice element), reminds the country that the Second Amendment says "shall not unfringe" (a ban would be an infringement, just in case you don't have a dictionary handy), and reminds the voters that the Right does not like A) blaming weapons for crimes committed by people, B) making felons out of people who own a hunk of metal and have never done anything wrong in their lives, C) leaving open-ended laws that, at the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats, can further infringe on our rights, and D) passing legislation under the guise of "reduncing crime and gun deaths" when it demonstrably does nothing of the kind.
Aside from the fact that your statement is asinine if you are applying it to Bush, what do you think will happen to the Constitution if idiots like you help elect Hillary?